Recruiting in the 90's
I began following college football when good old Lloyd was hired and I bet some older kid in the 6th grade (I was in the 4th) that UM will beat OSU, not knowing anything at all about the sport or that OSU had Eddie George and were favorites to beat us. The only thing I knew was the hype surrounding the game as evidenced by the various activities that went on in school. What caught my eye was that Monday after the game, the kid I made the bet with handed me 100 pennies, as UM had won. Since then I have been an avid follower of the team, but unfortunately only recently (last three years) have been keeping up with recruiting. I was just curious to see if anyone had any stats of our recruiting rankings in the 1990's and the star ratings, if there were any, that accompanied our most successful players from that time.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:39 PM ^
since recruiting rankings only go back to 2002 on rivals and scout. i've always wanted to see ratings on players such as woodson, a-train, brady, ect. I know there was one year (1998?) where we had a bunch of the #1 rated players though. I'll be curious to see if anyone can find anything
November 20th, 2008 at 3:34 PM ^
i think its widely agreed that brady would have been a solid but not spectacular 4 * recruit, a top 15 pro-style QB. maybe in the clayton richards mold. woodson i'd give a high 4 *, a la justin turner, guy who played more RB in high school but projected as a big cornerback in college. A-Train may have been fringe 5*. Beanie Wells type. He was physically ready to play from day one. Henson, Terrell, Walker, Fargas were all 5*. Brian Griese? 2*, maybe 3. These are just guesses, of course.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:41 PM ^
Tom Brady had to almost beg the coaches to give him an offer. IIRC, he had to do quite the sales job to play here. I think he was probably a mid-level 3 star by that description.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:48 PM ^
Yeah I can see that. You've probably seen the video tape his high school coach put together for colleges. It doth reeked of desperation. But I think, in the mid 90's, being a 6'5 QB with a good arm, from California, with a Michigan offer, bumps him into the 4* range. I think some of the rivals guys have said that. And he was drafted by the Montreal Expos, right? So that's something. I think.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:41 PM ^
, I can't remember which, you can go back quite a few years and see what players star ratings were. There are a lot of names I never heard of because players just never panned out.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:53 PM ^
the first year I can remember recruiting being followed with any kind of intensity was 1998. That was the year many thought we had secured the top QB- Henson, the top RB- Fargas, and the top 2 WRs- Terrell and Walker. Before that, I do remember some hype regarding Anthony Thomas coming out of Louisiana in '97.
November 20th, 2008 at 2:55 PM ^
I think Bo said something like this about recruiting: 1/3 of your recruits will meet expectations, 1/3 will surpass them and 1/3 will disappoint. Sounds about right
November 20th, 2008 at 3:49 PM ^
I'm pretty sure that Woodson would at least be high 4-star, as I remember hearing a ton of hype about him in the 1995 class. I don't remember hearing about Brady at the time, but I heard great things about him during his redshirt year (i.e. we've got Dreisbach and Griese now, but there's some incredible stud on the bench). He had to be at least 4-star. Griese, I guess, would be 3-star, since IIRC he did get offers from other schools, but chose to walk onto Michigan instead.
The 1998 class was outrageously good. Henson, Fargas, Terrell, and Walker would all be considered 5-star. There were some other big names in that one, but that class suffered badly from attrition and injuries.
November 20th, 2008 at 3:51 PM ^
This fact begs to be repeated whenever recruiting rankings are discussed.
Mike Hart = 3*
Kevin Grady = 5*
November 20th, 2008 at 4:03 PM ^
ALL. Will Paul was also a 5 star guy for UM and look at his brilliant career.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:34 PM ^
As does this fact
Terrelle Pryor = 5*
Nick Sheridan = ...did he actually get any offers? He's not even listed in the Rivals recruiting database.
November 20th, 2008 at 4:50 PM ^
"Whether or not you try to use anecdotal evidence to discredit recruiting rankings" should be a fundamental test to tell whether a person is actually reading and comprehending what Brian writes.
November 20th, 2008 at 5:51 PM ^
This is aimed at the guy above me right?
November 20th, 2008 at 3:51 PM ^
This fact begs to be repeated whenever recruiting rankings are discussed.
Mike Hart = 3*
Kevin Grady = 5*
November 20th, 2008 at 5:17 PM ^
star ratings indicate the liklihood of a player being good. it doesn't promise anything.
http://www.athlonsports.com/college-football/13422/nfl-stars-how-recrui…
you should probably read that
November 20th, 2008 at 6:34 PM ^
That's a good point. And I don't deny the recruiting rankings are more right than not. Again, I defer to Bo: 1/3 meet, 1/3 fail, 1/3 surpass expectations. Let's face it, some guys are can't miss: Lamarr Woodley comes to mind
November 20th, 2008 at 5:28 PM ^
These are the 5 stars Michigan has recruited since 2002.
Ryan Mallett
Donovan Warren
Brandon Graham
Steve Schilling
Kevin Grady
Chad Henne
Prescott Burgess
LaMarr Woodley
Gabe Watson
All of the ones who have graduated are in the NFL, either starting or fairly comfortable on the active roster. Outside of Grady, all the others are current, multi-year starters, Mallett excepted for obvious reasons. I'd say the ratings are pretty accurate.
November 20th, 2008 at 6:46 PM ^
You're right, those guys were all studs coming out, no question they all had/have big talent. But to play devil's advocate, I'd argue that of that list, only 3 had 5* careers at Michigan:
Henne, Graham, Woodley.
Jury's still out on Warren and Schilling with two years to go, those guys look to be future All Big Ten, potential All-Americans but we'll see.
And Dave Harris was better than Prescott Burgess-- I believe he was 3*.
Mike Hart, again, better than Grady.
Alan Branch was better than Gabe Watson.
Nick Sheridan is obviously superior to Ryan Mallett. Er, no wait, nevermind.
I think grain of salt is the cliche I would employ when it comes to rankings.
November 20th, 2008 at 7:35 PM ^
A 5 star doesn't mean he'll be the best player at his position that the team will ever see. Almost every 5 star we've had, you can probably pick a guy who was rated below him who was better. But if I listed every 4 star we've had over that same period, there would be WAY more guys who were non-contributors or who played a minor role on the team. Grady is the only guy who falls into that category, out of 8. That's not a bad percentage.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:20 AM ^
I wouldn't say that Henne had a 5-star career at Michigan. His sophomore year was mediocre, at best and his inability to move the team against bad defenses that year (e.g. Notre Shame, Minnesota, Wisconsin) cost Michigan numerous times. Against Norhtwestern, he threw three interceptions against the dead last ranked passing defense in I-A. His career efficiency numbers are pretty average for a guy who played with Jake Long protecting his blind side while he threw to Mario Manningham, Adrian Arrington, Steve Breaston, Jason Avant, and Braylon Edwards during an era where Notre Dame and the rest of the Big 10 had a lot of weak defenses.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:27 AM ^
He was picked at the top of the 2nd round and finished his career holding several Michigan passing records. Your standards are pretty damn high if you don't think he deserved a 5-star ranking in retrospect.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:55 AM ^
I don't care what round he was picked in. Lots of quarterbacks with average careers get picked in the NFL draft because of their physical tools.
The records that he leaves Michigan with are the result of playing for 4 years and accumulating a shitton of passing attempts. It's the same reason why Anthony Thomas graduated with some Michigan records even though he was crummy to mediocre for his first three years and ranks firmly behind Hart, Wheatley, Boles, Morris, Biakabutuka, and Woolfolk in a list of the greatest Michigan backs ever.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:02 AM ^
You clearly missed the point that rankings are based on pro prospects. So, yeah, the fact that Henne had the physical tools to be drafted in the 2nd round is exactly why he got 5-stars, and exactly why he deserved the.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:27 AM ^
Well the discussion was who had 5-star careers at Michigan, and that was my opinion on Henne. The fact that Michigan went to a BCS game his freshman year shows that he deserved his high school accolades, but in my opinion, Henne lacked a certain factor between the ears that kept him from developing into a truly great one like Brady, Grbac, Harbaugh, Collins, or Henson.
Also, I don't see where the star rankings are solely intended for evaluating a prospect's chances of getting drafted in the NFL. Tim Tebow, for example, was a 5-star recruit and he has had an incredible college career, but nobody considers him a high NFL prospect.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:15 AM ^
The fact that he's not considered a high NFL prospect has more to do with the offense he runs than his gifts. If Tebow had gone to a program like USC or Michigan with a pro-style offense (before Rodriguez came, obviously), he would probably be considered a high first round pick. As it is, he spends too much time running the ball and throwing bubble screens from the shotgun formation for scouts to have a good read on what his abilities might be in a classic NFL system.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:19 AM ^
Ah hahahahahahahahahaha. Do you know anything about football? The offensive system he runs does NOT impair the ability of professional scouts to get a good read on his abilities.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:30 AM ^
Seriously? For real?
I hope you're not serious. If you are in fact serious, please name a successful NFL quarterback who ran the read option almost exclusively in college. And Vince Young doesn't count, since he got benched in favor of Kerry Collins and was arguably unsuccessful even before he hurt his knee.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:37 AM ^
First off, the argument is based off this:
"As it is, he spends too much time running the ball and throwing bubble screens from the shotgun formation for scouts to have a good read on what his abilities might be in a classic NFL system."
So the debate is whether the system impairs the scouts abilities to evaluate players. However, you immediately narrow my defense to a SUCCESSFUL NFL QB that ran a read option ALMOST exclusively. Then, fucking then, you remove Vince Young because he got benched for Kerry Collins, which was because he's a fucking headcase, not because he sucks at football.
Also, your argument is horrible anyway because of Matt Cassel. He never even fucking played at USC and was drafted. Ergo, NFL scouts not only don't give 2 shits what system you ran in college, they don't fucking care if you even played for your college team if you have NFL talent.
You lose, now please shut the fuck up.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:49 AM ^
1. He almost exclusively takes snaps out of the shotgun. Most NFL systems require a majority of snaps from under center and require the QB to drop back, which is much different.
2. Vince Young has 22 career touchdowns and 32 career interceptions. You cannot tell me that he has developed into a successful NFL quarterback, even if you take away the fact that he was benched.
3. When I said "almost exclusively" I was referring to the offense. The "read option spread" is a general name for the offense Rodriguez and Urban Meyer run. It doesn't necessarily mean they run that play every snap.
4. Matt Cassel's example actually supports my argument, because he played in a pro style offense and is now playing pretty well in the NFL.
But nice try.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:54 AM ^
Since your argument was that Tebow spends too much time in college doing NON NFL type things to be evaluated.
Information on Cassel's college career, from Wiki: "As a result of Leinart's success, Cassel spent time at tight end, even making his lone collegiate start at that position. During his four seasons at USC, Cassel completed 19 of 33 passes for 192 yards, with no touchdowns and one interception."
Somehow, I think Tebow has made more than 33 NFL type throws while playing at Florida.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:19 PM ^
He was also the backup QB in the pro style offense, which means he played in a pro style offense every single day in practice, got backup QB snaps, and played against perhaps the most talented defensive players in the nation. Hell, his practice throws were probably against better defenses than what he would have faced every Saturday in Pac-10 games.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:24 PM ^
Which is why he got drafted. However, your point that the system impairs players to get adequately evaluated is still wrong.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:26 PM ^
Yeah, but when did NFL scouts see any of this? Your argument against Tebow is that NFL scouts only see him running a spread shotgun offense. Those same scouts didn't see Cassel do anything and yet were able to determine that he was capable of being an NFL quarterback.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:42 PM ^
And Cassel WASN'T EVEN DRAFTED UNTIL THE 7TH ROUND. I don't even know why he's in the conversation. Some team took a flyer on him toward the end of the draft. I never said Tebow wouldn't get drafted or would go in the 7th round.
You guys are saying they will take a player late in the draft from a pro style offense who was a backup in college.
I'm saying Tebow won't be a top 10 pick in part because of the offense he runs.
Those two things are completely independent from each other.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:55 AM ^
But Magnus - you've drawn an insanely limiting scope here, as defined by "the offenses that Urban Meyer and Rich Rodriguez run". OK, so out of Pat White, Rasheed Marshall, Adam Bednarik, Woody Dantzler, Shaun King, Tim Tebow, Chris Leak, Josh Harris, and Alex Smith, which are "successful pros"?
Well, Shaun King was an NFL starting QB that brought his team to the Super Bowl. That is, at least marginally, successful.
The fact that Alex Smith isn't good doesn't obscure the fact that he was a first pick overall running an offense that you say prohibits Tebow from being thought of as a viable NFL QB.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:57 AM ^
Look at Tom Brady, he ran pro style and spent most of last season running a shotgun spread formation.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:00 PM ^
That's kind of the point we're trying to make to Magnus. That the college system you run (or in the case of Cassel, watch Leinart and Palmer run) does not impair NFL scouts from adequately judging your talent. Nor does it necessarily mean anything, seeing as Alex Smith was a #1 draft pick, meaning scouts, despite seeing him throwing these bubble screens and running, determined he had the ability to be a top QB.
I have no idea how Magnus arrives at the conclusions he does.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:05 PM ^
It would be more accurate to say that Meyer's offensive system HELPED Smith's draft status.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:12 PM ^
Which is the exact OPPOSITE of Magnus' argument.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:44 PM ^
You are absolutely correct. Alex Smith is excellent proof that running a spread option well qualifies a quarterback to be a high draft pick. I stand corrected on the issue.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:48 PM ^
Magnus, you're moving the goalposts again. I never said Alex Smith was a successful NFL QB. You claimed that the Read Option hindered Tebow from being a high NFL draft pick. My point was that the read option turned an utterly unqualified QB into THE FIRST PICK OVERALL. Those two are the exact opposite.
November 21st, 2008 at 1:12 PM ^
And the correlation I hoped you would see through the sarcasm is this:
Alex Smith ran Meyer's offense at Utah. Scouts thought he was worth the first pick in the draft. He wasn't. Doesn't it seem as though scouts might have learned their lesson from Smith's failure?
November 22nd, 2008 at 11:20 AM ^
this column is very skinny
November 21st, 2008 at 1:14 PM ^
It is much easier to move from under center to shotgun than it is to move from shotgun to under center. The footwork is different, the reads are different, the progression is different. Play action from under center often cuts the field in half, whereas play action from shotgun doesn't. Etc. Etc.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:16 PM ^
Brad Johnson was the starting quarterback of the Bucs when they went to the Super Bowl, not Shaun King.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:45 PM ^
I'm aware they won the SB with Johnson, but I thought King took them to one they lost, which I now realize was 1999 when they almost beat the Rams in the NFC championship.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:28 PM ^
I didn't limit it to the offenses that Rodriguez and Meyer run. I was talking about the spread option, which several coaches run. And you're right. I guess Shaun King counts as a moderately successful NFL quarterback, but looking back at his career, did his success really warrant a high first round (like we're discussing with Tebow)? I honestly don't know. If a GM were promised a few decent years and a Super Bowl loss from a first round QB, would he pick that guy or would he risk it on someone else?
November 21st, 2008 at 12:34 PM ^
I thought this was what the Chicago Bears were offered with Rex Grossman. We should ask their GM. Seriously though, I'm pretty sure when they picked him with the 26th pick, they didn't plan on him sucking. However, given their refusal to draft a functioning QB and waste so much talent everywhere else, I say they deserve it.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:45 AM ^
Donovan McNabb was an option QB in college.